140
Categorical Phil Imperative: unconditional obligation; does not depend on desires or beliefs; core
basis of morality = act according to maxim by which at the same time could be a universal law
Maxim: underlying action; in order to achieve this goal this is the action I am going to take
Can you will your maxim as a law for everybody?
If so action is right; otherwise action is wrong
The humanity formula of the CI:
Always treat humanity never simply as a means but always also as an ends
treat someone as a means = using a person to get to something that your want; not respecting
or valuing them as a person
do you use people? If so the action is wrong
or does my action respect other people and treat them as ends in themselves? If so action is right
one categorical rule. ^ two ways of following it
Objections to Kant
Kant thinks it is NEVER permissible to lie: the duty not to lie is categorical (something you cant
get out of)
Morally permissible = morally right
1. Problem!! Cant make exception to moral theory even if theres an inquiring murderer at your
door
If you make maxim more specific unless it will save someones life, you should not lie
Ask what if they was a universal world everywhere?
Possible solution: can we get around this problem by formulating our maxims in the right way?
Problem with solution: how do we formulate the maxims? Especially in specific cases
Cant make get out of jail free cards?
Theory is absolutist; gets blurry with exceptions
2. Is there really a contradiction involved in acting against the CI?
Imagine world where everyone lied or no one helped each other or committed suicide = is it
actually contradictory or does it just have really bad consequences?
Question about what drives our intuition about each case; are these rational contradictions or just
that the consequences are bad? The source of moral wrongness is not cause it morally contradicts
but because they have bad consequences
Action is wrong because the consequences were bad, not because it violates CI
3. some philosophers think that emotions are necessary for morality. For ex: husband and
stranger are both drowning, typically save husband; according to Kant, save person who would
objectively have more value to society
might there be something morally deficient about someone who always acted out of duty and
never felt moral emotion?
Kant believes there should be no emotion; all logical; its enough to just base decisions on reason;
emotion is never necessary
David Hume thinks that only moral sympathy or feeling can motivate us to act morally
Acting out of duty is not as morally praiseworthy as acting out of emotion. Ex: because you
love them; Kant believes complete opposite
Non-Kantian Deontology: W.D. Ross
Claims there are seven prima facie (on the face of it) duties:
1. Beneficence (promoting happiness)
2. Nonmaleficence (not doing harm)
3. Fidelity (honoring commitments)
4. Reparation (making up for harms)
5. Gratitude (repaying favors)
6. Self-improvement (in knowledge and virtue)
7. Justice (giving equal consideration)
These duties can conflict, but we weight them against each other to find our all thinks
considered duty
INTUITION tells us which duty is more important a in particular context
Rights and Virtues
What are rights? A right is a claim that someone has to some good that others are obligated not to
violate
So rights are things we are entitled to in some way
Think of them as fundamental rules about what we are allowed to do, or what we are owed
Natural rights stem from out nature in some way
Some (like Locke) argue that rights stem from our being created in Gods image
Others (Kant) argue that rights stem from out rational nature
Natural rights are taken to be obvious or self-evident; uncontroversial, everyone knows and
accepts them
Liberty rights: the right to be left free to pursue our own legitimate interests
Legitimate interests are those that do not violate anyone elses similar and equal rights or
interests; free to pursue
Welfare rights: rights to receive certain social goods necessary for us to pursue our legitimate
interests; food, education, security, access to employment, healthcare; give you goods to pursue
interests
Some argue you need welfare rights to have liberty rights
Problems with Natural rights:
Worry about self-evidence; how do we know what is a natural right? And what is just good to
have?
Right: claim that you to some good; no one can intrude on
Natural rights: its obvious, comes from nature
Distinction between moral and legal rights
Contrasting view of rights: rights are connected to or derived from the duties of other people or
institutionsall rights have a corresponding duty
Ex: the duty of fidelity entails that we have the right to expect others to keep their promises
A right to healthcare entails a duty for someone (presumably the gov) to provide it
Future generations right to a good future entails that we have a duty to protect the environment
Natural rights privilege humans as special (either because they are made in Gods image or
because they are rational)
This leaves out animals and the environment which some people find to be a problem
Virtue Ethics
Emphasizes character; the heart of morality is not what we do, but who we are
Virtues are good character traits
Vices are bad character traits
Virtue can complement another theory
Teleological view of nature; every kind of organic thing has a special, characteristic function or
goal
Ergon (characteristic function) argument:
1. Goodness for each kind of thing lies in performing its unique function well
2. The unique function of humans is exercising reason
Therefore: goodness for humans is in exercising reason well
We exercise our reason in different ways with regard to different areas in our lives
Reasoning well in an area simply is being virtuous in that area
So to possess a virtue is to have a general tendency to reason well in a given area
Ex: to possess honesty is to generally reason well when it comes to telling people information
Possessing virtues in all areas across your entire life is eudaimonia (more than happiness) or
flourishing
The doctrine of the mean
Reasoning well or virtue consists in finding the mean or average between two extremes of excess
and deficiency in an area; each extreme is equally bad; have to find the middle grounds
Aim towards thing that your less inclined to do
We form virtues as a result of habit